Disposed

Enchant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar Singh, Principle Secretary and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2020CAPL/4330/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought punishment for civil contempt alleging non-compliance with a writ order from 24.10.2019. The High Court held that a prima facie case exists but granted the respondents an additional two months to comply with the writ order instead of immediate punishment.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties granted two months to comply with the previous writ order; liberty to applicant to apply for punishment if not complied with.

Enchant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Singh… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4330 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Enchant Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Opposite Party :- Manoj Kumar Singh, Principle Secretary And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Bhan Yadav,Namit Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

By order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Writ C No. 34675 of 2019 filed by the applicant, this Court directed as under:

¶7

"In the facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Principal Secretary (Housing & Urban Planning), Government of U.P., Lucknow (the respondent no. 1) to decide the revision of the petitioner in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order.

¶8

Till the disposal of the revision, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but they have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶10

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶11

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within three weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the selfaddressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof.

¶12

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the order to the applicant through the self-

¶13

addressed envelope within a week thereafter.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶16

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.11.2020 A.K.Srivastava

Enchant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar Singh, Principle Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Enchant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar Singh, Principle Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Badan Chauhan Vs Sri Raghwendra Singh, Assistant Collector/S.D.M

Dr. Krishan Prakash Srivastava Vs Amit Mohan Prasad, Principal Secretary/ Chief Secretary

Jai Prakash Mishra Vs Praveen Kumar Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer

Satyendra Goswami @ Kishan Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and Another

Manju Yadav Vs Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University

Ratan Singh Vs Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others